The things can be visually organized like the Inkscape does:
http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/Roadmap . As I think, the
roadmap at their site is much late to the current features implemented,
but the whole framework represents the picture.
Although there can be something like preliminary voting at the site:
what features are the most awaited by the users with the ability to add
such a feature if it is absent from the list. This list could help
developers a little to know vox populi to make further architectural and
schedule decisions. Of course, it wouldn't be a rule, only a reference.
Reading through Russian linux news site, I can express here the most
anticipated features GIMP lacks to serve the photographers from the user
1. more than 8 bits per channel.
2. CMYK and Lab
3. layer effects
The significance of the features coincides with their number. So if 2.6
only had more than 8 bits per channel, it would satisfy a great amount
Valerie VK wrote:
>> So, an important decision must be taken, imo. Plan the 2.6 version as a
>> "new core" version (with important improvements in the technical area,
>> but maybe not that visible for the final users), or a "new features"
>> version. If this isn't defined, there is a risk to fall in a long
>> development cycle again.
> How about a "new core" version, with just a few key features
> implemented on top of that?
> GEGL can’t be delayed forever. Sooner or later the issue has to be
> tackled. In the meantime, many commonly asked features can’t be
> implemented without more work on GEGL.
> Whenever there’s a new version of Gimp, any given user usually only
> focuses on 3 or 4 of the new enhancements. The rest may have
> minimal impact for them.
> However, architectural enhancements can usually benefit everybody,
> so it fills half the new quota they expect from the program already.
> For example, the ability to configure keyboard shortcuts was for me a
> bigger improvement than any individual new filter. What stood out
> for me this version was brush-scaling, though that’s less of an
> architectural issue. Point is, not all enhancements are of the same
> level. The basic issues are often the one affecting most people.
> A Gimp 2.6 release that says this:
> "Gimp has finally implemented layer groups and brush groups.
> [insert explanation and photos]
> This was possible because Gimp has started significant architectural
> rework by commencing on the long-waited implementation of GEGL.
> GEGL is [insert short explanation].
> In the near future, GEGL will allow the implementation of other
> long-awaited features such as native CMYK support, layer effects and
> other non-destructive editing, much improved image scaling, and more.
> Once migration to GEGL is complete, expect faster new features and
> shorter development cycles. Stay tuned!
> In the meantime, if you are a developer and wish to contribute to the
> development of Gimp, [see here]."
> ...will not be considered a "poor" release, especially since The
> developers have bothered to explain just Why GEGL Is being worked on.
> People will be a bit more patient with "bland" releases if they know
> that as a result, they Will get the features they had been waiting for
> soon enough later.
> That said, this also depends on the developers. They can't be forced to
> work on GEGL, either.
Gimp-developer mailing list